Carissa How News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

A recent Federal Court decision confirms that remedies in a statutory oppression action may extend to the directors of the subject company and third parties. The decision establishes the wide scope and remedies available in a statutory oppression action, in line with its expressed purpose of "bringing to an end or remedying the matters complained of". This provides welcome clarity with regard to Section 346 of the Companies Act 2016.

While most companies which have obtained an adjudication decision in their favour choose to apply for said decision to be enforced via Section 28 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act (CIPAA), the less-travelled road of demanding payment for an adjudication decision via Section 30 of the CIPAA is proving to be another effective recourse for payment – as evidenced by a recent high court decision.

Introduction The Kuala Lumpur High Court has held that the appointment of the director of the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) is not justiciable in the Malaysian courts. On 12 October 2020 the high court struck out two originating summonses against the former director of the AIAC, the late Vinayak Pradhan.(1) The originating summonses were taken out by Prestij Mega Construction Sdn Bhd against the claimants in two separate adjudication proceedings. Prestij Mega sought to set aside the adjudication decisions on the grounds that, among other things, the appointments of the adjudic...